RE: Compressed Routing Header idea
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 13:09 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511E93A0BED; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPmPVe4vOSBr; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BB293A0BF3; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 04MD9UfM010449; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:09:31 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1590152971; bh=fIFXuo2u+rhSbZ/proqCnrWhLyOzSyNsLb/YXIub63c=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aoxogxpzT+0jITAknB3O1ONhdgG4JgdkPzfHLsCoOxSJnM9kOPnGxt9IvpRcM/za2 cW2VjoAhRcnxBFOzXcbzM0Kl2r47C2ihp0DxAqlAiQGuLRoDjA/J0o0TyikQf10wBl 64188RqK03+aMA476C1Y7bVqleseNEEnPlABgeYRXqQV4dQk3xRNZquqAvJJ1VHGWI sJosbzk9cXexbhAjyR1LaiWoJbiKTfsydGCgcdY8se6NlBHM3MEktncwNU6u60rbff KD9ELsMKK23Xfe/xAmSzxAIKvfp6p/2ok96BeX124zc8upcoE7CwVS3MaTSZbovuMs Ac0uqXoVo4xow==
Received: from XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-12.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.114]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 04MD9NKw010286 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 May 2020 09:09:23 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:09:15 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Fri, 22 May 2020 06:09:15 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
CC: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Compressed Routing Header idea
Thread-Topic: Compressed Routing Header idea
Thread-Index: AdYtHG+8rC3YEibIRJu4gVbarLwgbQABz5wgAACO2SAAFuHNAACJ7auAABRTTwAACDIfAP//9fSA//+5d6A=
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 13:09:15 +0000
Message-ID: <542fb2ad1d0943f99904986a48456013@boeing.com>
References: <2a844eb431b346b8931196c5e21d33ae@boeing.com> <MN2PR11MB35654AC2F2C85717097DA6C6D8B80@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <e3c8e3a6e80047cd9033e48997e0bb99@boeing.com> <CABNhwV2RCii_e6H1L2BgoyqjzGOOWf6+=CN_KJc+KmH9eYZRgw@mail.gmail.com> <4af522c96b53457781e428432543e592@boeing.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D50CEDC3E2D502E943C6AEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9de501a671be4fc1a8a6210f56429fe4@boeing.com> <CALx6S35Co+XXzTY8=f19ksQLgfCMAfS9g29V9iN-URd9my9U+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S35Co+XXzTY8=f19ksQLgfCMAfS9g29V9iN-URd9my9U+w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 0C420B6B591A2027B5CA2BD763D664E1F923169B3A482B648F08D9091A447A002000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_542fb2ad1d0943f99904986a48456013boeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/sewvi4YRWjHx2Sv7XXuI-lavTIA>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 13:09:38 -0000
Hi Tom, >In your case, why not just encapsulate ip-ip with the routing header and have the decap point be the penultimate node? I want the packet to traverse N IPv6 Internets via standard IPv6 routing before the router in the N+1th IPv6 Internet performs IP-in-IP encapsulation to forward to the final destination. It is in the AERO spec if you wanted to have a look. Also, since I am doing segment routing within a mid-layer encapsulation header that is guaranteed not to have an AH it should be OK. Fred From: Tom Herbert [mailto:tom@herbertland.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:52 PM To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Compressed Routing Header idea On Thu, May 21, 2020, 6:44 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote: Hi Ron, What I am concerned with is the case where the ultimate hop is over a very slow link (e.g., 100Kbps or less). Any form of compression can help, and compressing away a Routing Header could result in a small savings – but a savings nonetheless. So, why not just truncate it? The final destination won’t miss it and will never be aware that it was ever there in the first place. Fred, That's not guaranteed. For instance, if an AH is present then validation will break at the final destination if the RH was deleted or it otherwise modified in a non-conformant way. This is case of the ongoing discussion about whether intermediate nodes can insert, delete, or process extension headers is flight (RFC8200 states they cannot). In your case, why not just encapsulate ip-ip with the routing header and have the decap point be the penultimate node? Tom Thanks - Fred From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 3:33 PM To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>; 6MAN <6man@ietf.org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> Subject: RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Fred, When a node decrements Segments Left to 0, it causes all subsequent nodes to ignore the Routing header. So, I don’t see a good reason to remove the Routing header. It will be ignored by all downstream nodes anyway. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:00 PM To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>; 6MAN <6man@ietf..org<mailto:6man@ietf.org>>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net<mailto:rbonica@juniper.net>> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> Subject: RE: Compressed Routing Header idea [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi, just seeing this question now (below). The idea is that the router that processes the penultimate SID would “pair” it with the ultimate SID so that the penultimate SID is written as the final IPv6 destination while the ultimate SID (which may include an address and port number) is used as a destination for IPv6-in-IP encapsulation. So, the final hop router before the final destination would be the one to extract it. I had a somewhat related question – can the final hop router before the final destination delete the Routing Header before forwarding? Thanks - Fred Fred Curious what would be the particular application use case for variable compressed routing header to add ancillary info like port or other miscellaneous info. I am guessing the final destination would have to extract the ancillary. In a connection the tcp or udp source is the same unless using RPC or an app using dynamic port allocation and want to save the port info somewhere else. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-crh-variable/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-crh-variable/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ViLHxbEJqhubTR_jBFZ9qv59Xn3jPyPGQcTN33jDxZuo2nzpBinDu4TXl9lvoN3y$> Thanks Gyan On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:12 AM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote: Pascal, thanks I did not know about this but at first glance I do not believe RFC8138 fully satisfies what I need. First, I want to be able to support both left-side (most significant bits) and right-side (least significant bits) compression. Second, I want to be able to compress to the byte granularity for any length from 0 to 16 bytes. And, third, I want to be able to include an ancillary piece of information (e.g., an application port number) with each IPv6 address. So, I submitted a short draft showing the format that I would see as being flexible to support my use case and I think perhaps many other: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-crh-variable/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-crh-variable/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ViLHxbEJqhubTR_jBFZ9qv59Xn3jPyPGQcTN33jDxZuo2nzpBinDu4TXl9lvoN3y$> I did include a reference to RFC8138 - let me know your thoughts. Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>] > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 7:55 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com<mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>> > Subject: RE: Compressed Routing Header idea > > Hello Fred: > > Are you aware of RFC 8138? See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8138#section-5.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8138*section-5.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ViLHxbEJqhubTR_jBFZ9qv59Xn3jPyPGQcTN33jDxZuo2nzpBinDu4TXl0b3-Gbz$> > The addresses in the source route header can be compressed as follows: > > " > > +-----------+----------------------+ > | 6LoRH | Length of compressed | > | Type | IPv6 address (bytes) | > +-----------+----------------------+ > | 0 | 1 | > | 1 | 2 | > | 2 | 4 | > | 3 | 8 | > | 4 | 16 | > +-----------+----------------------+ > > Figure 7: The SRH-6LoRH Types > > " > You need multiple SRH-6loRH if you have different sizes to accommodate.. > > Keep safe > > Pascal > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L > > Sent: lundi 18 mai 2020 16:04 > > To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>> > > Subject: Compressed Routing Header idea > > > > Hi, I have a use case where some IPv6 addresses that would go into a routing > > header are more compressible than others and so I am wondering if some kind > > of "hybrid" compressed routing header would be possible.. For example, if one > > address can be compressed down to > > 16 bits, then include only those 16 bits; if a different address can only be > > compressed down to 32 bits, then include the 32 bits; if yet a different address > > cannot be compressed at all, then include all 128 bits. And, there may be many > > more sizes in between. > > > > RFC4191 Section 2.3 shows an example of how an IPv6 prefix/address can be > > compressed to a variable length. Essentially, a length byte followed by a > > variable-length prefix. That way there would still be "pretty good compression" > > albeit with an extra byte per prefix. And, it would be a generalized form that > > would only require a single routing header type value. > > How would it be if we did something like that? > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ViLHxbEJqhubTR_jBFZ9qv59Xn3jPyPGQcTN33jDxZuo2nzpBinDu4TXl0Q2OkFT$> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ViLHxbEJqhubTR_jBFZ9qv59Xn3jPyPGQcTN33jDxZuo2nzpBinDu4TXl0Q2OkFT$> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Gyan Mishra Network Engineering & Technology Verizon Silver Spring, MD 20904 Phone: 301 502-1347 Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com<mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: Compressed Routing Header idea Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Ron Bonica
- Re: Compressed Routing Header idea Tom Herbert
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Compressed Routing Header idea Gyan Mishra
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Chengli (Cheng Li)
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Ron Bonica
- Re: Compressed Routing Header idea Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Compressed Routing Header idea Gyan Mishra
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L
- RE: Compressed Routing Header idea Templin (US), Fred L